Two ballistic missiles were fired from Houthi rebel-controlled Yemen toward a US warship in the Gulf of Aden, after the US Navy responded to a distress call from a commercial tanker that had been seized by armed individuals, the US military said Sunday.

The tanker, identified as the Central Park, had been carrying a cargo of phosphoric acid when its crew called for help that “they were under attack from an unknown entity,” the US Central Command said in a statement.

The USS Mason, a guided-missile destroyer, and allied ships from a counter-piracy task force that operates in the Gulf of Aden and off the coast of Somalia responded to the call for help and “demanded release of the vessel” upon arrival, Central Command said.

“Subsequently, five armed individuals debarked the ship and attempted to flee via their small boat,” said the statement posted on social media platform X.

  • Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Boat A responded to a call from Boat B that was under attack in the water. Boat A fired warning shots and used a weapon to deflect an incoming weapon. No injuries or damage were reported. The incident is being investigated.

    Better?

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Well yes, but actually no.

      We both know you didn’t have to remove all the detail along with the sensationalized detail. You’re just trying to be petty about it.

      • schmidtster@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well that’s their point, where’s the line of sensationalized detail? Calling it a missile can be sensationalism to some people.

        Also, omitting details is sensationalism as well, it’s not just adding words. They sensationalized the headline with omissions to make a point.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Calling it a missile can be sensationalism to some people.

          People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. It’s a “missile” if it has a means of self-propulsion (otherwise it’s a “bullet” or “shell”) and a guidance system (otherwise it’s a “rocket”). Maybe some people would think calling a missile what it is is sensationalism, but they’re just wrong.

          They sensationalized the headline with omissions to make a point.

          Yes, I’m aware of what they were trying to do. Their point was stupid and they were petty to make it.

          • magnetosphere@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’ve always wondered what the difference is between a “rocket” and a “missile”, but constantly forget to look it up. Now I know it’s a guidance system. Thanks!

            • schmidtster@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Ballistic missiles don’t usually have guidance systems though…. Those are cruise missiles and why the original articles distinction matters.

              A missile is a rocket with a payload, which is just a projectile with an engine.

              The article better just call it a projectile to avoid any avenue of sensationalism.

          • schmidtster@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Fact, it’s a projectile.

            Describing it further as a missile, bullet, mortar, shell. Can all be considered sensationalism.

            You seem to have missed the point, where’s the line of a description being sensationalism?

            A ballistic missile is sensationalized of missile, missile is sensationalized of projectile. Projectile is sensationalized of weapon.

            Where’s the line dude……?

            • grue@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Describing it further as a missile, bullet, mortar, shell. Can all be considered sensationalism.

              No, that’s a lie. Words have meanings and you aren’t entitled to pretend “missile” isn’t factually accurate.

              • schmidtster@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                It is factually correct, just like ballistic missile is too. It lets you know it’s a dumb missle vs a smart one.

                If that distinction isn’t important, why is missile over projectile?

                You still missed the point entirely… do you need a stool or something? You can’t have your cake and eat it too lmfao. You’re being a massively hypocritcal troll if missile is important over projectile, but not clarifying ballistic as well. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

                Buddy was being a little pedantic with their example, but it was needed, multiple people (you included) are putting bias into sensationalism, and sometimes the only way to point that out is through exaggeration.

                It’s funny that you STILL missed their point and are arguing that missile is important over projectile/weapon, but not ballistic…. Lmfao.

    • Madison420@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nope detail to convey the subject is good, irrelevant detail to draw clicks isn’t.

      If someone sensationalizes a situation or event, they make it seem worse or more shocking than it really is.